Text 33411, 223 rader
Skriven 2016-05-22 04:14:56 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 33388 av Ross Cassell (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Bashing US Dictators
============================
Hello Ross,

 RC>>> As it pertains to the truth, he had given testimony in a civil suit he
 RC>>> was the defendant in, regarding sexual harassment, this affair
 RC>>> revealed his prior given court testimony (deposition) to have been a
 RC>>> lie.

 RM>> Here it is punishable to lie under oath.
 RM>> I would assume it is similar in the US.
 ->>> that is the way to go (legal system)

 RC> In this case, he lost his Arkansas law license and the privilege to argue
 RC> cases in front of the US Supreme Court.

Temporary loss of license to practice law, due to a Code of Ethics
violation.  Happens all the time.  Especially in Arkansas.  Now
that President Clinton is in New York, and campaigning for a future
President Clinton ...

 RM>> But the hunt started long before that.
 RM>> I remember shaking my head when this surfaced, back than there was no
 RM>> testimony yet, but the witchhunt was on.

 RC> It is rather simple, he was being sued for sexual harassment, in his
 RC> deposition, he was asked if he had ever had relations with anyone other
 RC> than his wife, he answered no.

He did more than that.  Much more -

"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I
worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing
to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say
this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss
Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These
allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American
people. Thank you." - Bill Clinton, live telecast on tv, 1/26/1998

Bill Clinton is a lawyer.  The words he used were very deliberate -

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Notice he never denied having relations with that woman.  It was
sexual relations with that woman.  What constitutes sexual relations
for one person might not constitute sexual relations for another.

 RC> When this Lewinsky story broke, it exposed his testimony as a lie.

What lie?  How did Bill Clinton lie?

 RC> He lied to the court.

Bill Clinton was acquitted, on all counts.  Impeached by the House,
tried by the Senate, and acquitted.

 RM>>>> I guess again a case of "cultural differences".
 RM>>>> And again I am quit happy to be on the "correct" side of the sea.
 RC>>> Is telling a lie to a court of law permissible on the "correct side of
 RC>>> the sea"?

 RM>> No, and in my side of the sea we would let the legal system do its job.
 RM>> We have courts for a reason.
 RM>> If a court decides that he is guilty, than punish him.
 RM>> If a court decides he is innocent, than he is innocent.

 RC> It is not illegal to have an affair or get a blowjob or insert a cigar
into
 RC> the vagina.

What charges did the House present?  What evidence did Ken Starr
have to base his case?  Bill Clinton does not smoke cigars, due to
allergies.  As such, we all know the cigar story was nothing but
a tall tale.

The Republican-controlled House chose to impeach the President
because the President was a Democrat and very popular with the
American people.  The Republicans had the numbers in the House
to do what they did, impeaching the President on trumped-up
charges.  But the Senate wisely acquitted the President, on
all counts, knowing there was no real evidence to support or
substantiate any of Ken Starr's wild claims.

 RC> It could have been illegal if the acts were performed in public and in
sight
 RC> of the public, as indecent exposure, this did not happen.

What were the charges presented by the House?  What charges did
the House actually impeach the President on?  And how many of those
charges did the Senate convict the President of?  Oh, that's right.
The President was acquitted.  On all charges.  Must not have been
much of a case ...

 RC> It would have been illegal if Lewinsky was a minor, nope, she was 22.

The House made an accusation, choosing to impeach the President.
As a result, the President was forced to stand trial, held by the
Senate, and was acquitted on all charges.

Of course, the President could have done like Richard Nixon,
resigning from office in disgrace.  But the President knew he
had done no wrong, and was there to serve the American people.
So he stood his ground, and got to keep his job.

 RC> Clinton was not prosecuted for having an affair..

Bill Clinton was acquitted in court of law (the US Senate).

 RC> As a matter of fact, had he said YES in his deposition, there would be no
 RC> perjury.

Of course there was no perjury.  Bill Clinton was acquitted
in court of law.  Just because the House made an accusation does
not make it true.  The President did have right to have his say,
and given a fair trial in due accordance with the US Constitution.
Well, fair as it would ever be, given the constitutional process.

 RC>>> But I am supposed to trust my elected leaders, as are you,

 RM>> It is not about trust.
 RM>> If somebody got elected, than he is elected.
 RM>> If he does a crime, than steps need to be initiated to punish him.
 RM>> (in this situation probably first a process to allow prosecution)

 RC> He was impeached by the House and the Senate did not convict him.

Bill Clinton was acquitted, on all counts, standing trial by the
US Senate.  That is our judicial process, as spelled out in the US
Constitution.

 RM>> I would supervise the behaviour, and let it influence the decision I
 RC> will
 RM>> take in the next election. (ie not vote for a person, who had
 RC> behaviour I do
 RM>> not agree with)

 RC> The POTUS is term limited to two terms, he was in his second term.

Bill Clinton was constitutionally barred from running for a third
consecutive term.  He could, if he so desired, choose to run for a
new first term, and subsequent second term.  George W. Bush could
choose to do the same.  Barack Obama will have to sit out four
years before seeking a new first term, so we'll all be safe for
at least a little while.

 RC>>> if my elected leader cannot keep their promises to their spouses, how
 RC>>> can I trust them to keep their promises to the people they are elected
 RC>>> to represent or lead? On that note alone I am allowed to condemn the
 RC>>> man for that, even if it is a matter of only being my opinion.

 RM>> It is *YOUR* decision if you want to trust him.
 RM>> When the next election comes up, you are free to vote for the candidate
 RC> you
 RM>> trust the most.

 RC> But you said it is not about TRUST??

Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating in history,
even higher than Ronald Reagan.  Why?  Because the American people
had a great deal of trust in Bill Clinton, knowing how much they
prospered under his reign.  22 million new jobs was just a start
of things to come, with GWB about to take the helm ...

 RC> There really is no cultural difference here, what is different is your
 RC> understanding of what happened, I realize there might be a more permissive
 RC> mindset in your neck of the woods, but Clintons difficulties from a LEGAL
 RC> standpoint stemmed from his lack of truthfulness to a court of law, not
 RC> where he was sticking his dick or cigars.. LOL

Bill Clinton told the truth to the American people -

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

He might not have been truthful with his wife, but that is none
of anybody else's business.  It could be his wife let him do it.
It could be his wife does the same thing he does.  Who the hell
knows?  Who the hell cares?

Every president (Democrat and Republican alike) has had affairs.
Some perhaps with the same sex.  What a shocker it will be when
a future president decides to come out of the closet.  It is not
a matter of if, but rather of when.

Why are Republicans so insistent about making every issue being
something about sex?  God, guns, and gays seems to be their mantra.
Look at what that way of thinking has gotten them.  Bill Clinton,
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton ...

 RC> But on the affair itself, technically it was improper, he was conductin
the
 RC> encounters near or in the Oval Office.

JFK liked to swim in the nude, in the presence of reporters,
at the swimming pool in the rose garden.  He is also known to
have entertained women (other than his wife) at the WH.  He
was not the only president to have done this.

The difference with times past and times present is that today
everything is open.  Nothing is kept secret.  In JFK's day,
reporters kept their collective mouths shut.  No president can
do the same today, as within fifteen minutes the whole world
will know about it, thanks to social media and other sources.

 RC> We the people didnt provide the POTUS with executive offices to conduct
his
 RC> sex life in.

We (the people) provide public housing for the president and
his/her family to live in, and do what they want in.  What we
expect our president to do, is what we hire him/her to do.
What are the president's duties and obligations?  Read the US
Constitution.  It's all spelled out in there.

 RC> Also a BOSS over EMPLOYEE relationship is also considered improper, that
if
 RC> in the private sector would lead to legal ramifications aside from
 RC> employment jeopardy.

Ulysses S. Grant was a drunkard.  Should we have thrown him
in the drunk tank rather than allow him to do his job?

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)